Red Grouse

I am somewhat confused at the RSPB's lack of support for the ban on driven grouse shooting.  Apart from the criminality and environmental destruction associated with driven grouse shooting, there is the simple fact that every year hundreds of thousands of red grouse, a native, endemic, species are killed for no good reason.

Some may be eaten but the vast majority are just wasted, as is the case with large scale pheasant and partridge shoots.  As the RSPB is frequently assailed by the forces behind these unsustainable, anachronistic practises that are underpinned by massive criminality, I do not understand why you are not more pro-active in supporting the measures to get it banned.  That three individuals, under the incorporated name WildJustice, have done more to highlight the criminality (ironically, often using the information produced by the magnificent RSPB Investigations team) and their implacable opposition to it and have, arguably, done more make the general public aware of the issue than the RSPB, is surely an embarrassment?

Why not put your massive support behind the latest petition to get it banned?   The shooting industry already hate you, so what have you got to lose? You are losing members who are unhappy at your perceived ambivalence to the campaign, perhaps you could persuade them to change their minds?

  • Check the RSPB’s royal charter and the RSPB along with the staff have to be neutral publicly in the question of shooting game-birds as long as it’s done legally within the law of the UK.
  • The RSPB changed their charter, without reference to the membership, to become the Royal Society for the Protection of Biodiversity (even if they didn't actually change the name) so why can't they make another change to be opposed to any activity that is underpinned by a significant level of criminality, persecution of protected species and environmental destruction?

    At the very least they should / could mention the petition at every opportunity and make their members aware, rather than ignoring it completely. It is news: and putting reference to it on their website can be a neutral act but ignoring it is, in itself, a political decision that is annoying large numbers of birders sick of the industry and the perceived ambivalence of the RSPB.
  • The word objects could mean lots of things, but not shooting game birds. It probably means when gamekeepers are allegedly accused of killing birds of prey on moorlands to protect the red grouse such as Hen Harriers. I did mention in one of my earlier posts that RSPB are neutral except when such practices have an impact on the object such as in my opinion killing Hen Harriers allegedly on Moors as well as other items illegally and not shooting game birds as long as it’s done legally and within the law, as I did mention earlier in one of my posts.
  • One of my infrequent returns to this community, interesting to see how the discussion developed. With the, almost certainly criminal, destruction of three of the harriers from the ridiculous brood meddling scheme surely these are the "objects" mentioned in the RSPB charter?